I walked into the hall this morning and there it was,that flat,brown package.I opened it up and pulled out this months National Geographic.I took it into the lounge and sat down with a cup of coffee ready for an hours reading pleasure.After 2 sips of roasted Java and a Richtea biscuit I realised I was reading a pile of crap.

What the hell has happened to NG? The writing is poor,it's full of adverts,but worse of all-the photography is appalling!

Now don't start with all that 'could you do better?' and 'everyone has an off day',because it doesn't cut the mustard.Yes,I honestly believe my photography is better than any of this months(David Alan Harvey should be sacked or if he is a freelancer,retire)and yes,we all have off days,but NG staff should keep there off days out of the magazine.

I don't pay 30 odd quid a year for this pathetic drivell.

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 01, 2002

Answers

I agree. NG is certainly going down hill.... my bet is that it will get better within a year or two. These things seem to go in cycles. National Geographic is in the lucky position of not really having any competitors (at least none that take away a lot of market share)... so maybe there needs to be something to challenge them.

-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), February 01, 2002.

I mean,the whole layout even,have they got a new design team?I personally want to see clean layout,one photo to a page or a double page spread.I want facts and photography.

Have they run-out of ideas or have they run-out of energy?

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 01, 2002.

I heard they found the wreck of the Titanic in the gutter of the magazine---it can really ruin a double-page spread.

But as someone above said, the quality of the magazine can really be cyclical.

-- Chuck Albertson (chucko@siteconnect.com), February 01, 2002.

I had already had several articles published in a particular professional journal when they changed editors and the new hire hacked my latest article to pieces. Because I am on their editorial review board I saw the final draft copy, and refused to allow it to be published. In the case of another contributor the journal, uner threat of a lawsuit, had to re-publish his article in the next issue word-for-word as it had originally been written. Before calling for the execution of the NG writers and photogs like Harvey, who have proven records of excellence, I would look critically at the editorial staff. A fish stinks from the head.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 01, 2002.

30-odd quid does seem a bit much, though....

-- John Morris (jtmorris@slb.com), February 01, 2002.

The editors don't take the photographs.The editors are given a stack of slides which the photographer has cut down from god knows how many thousand.I'm not just picking on Mr Harvey,most of the photographers have gone down hill,but editors can only work with what they are given.IMHO if they can't find 5(as in this months zip USA) useable photographs then they shouldn't publish that article.

I would expect fluctuations in the quality of Womans weekly,not National Geographic.

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 01, 2002.

I agree with a lot of what has been said here and in other posts re National Geographic. I read several articles lately that said photographers were getting 'treated badly' and 'screwed' by Geographic. I think we need to let them know our displeasure at the mag - not at the photographers but at the ed. decisions and cheapness that is creating the climate for the decline in quality. Cheers.

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), February 01, 2002.

That's very true Don.I suppose the photographers/writers aren't responsable for the layout.How do you mean they are being treated badly?

The sad fact is that what it all comes down to money.

-- virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 01, 2002.

I remember back in the 1940s and 1950s, when there were oil and watercolor paintings when photography wasn't practical or the reporter did not have camera expertise. Moreover, all the photography was done with Leica rangefinders. It was great stuff, but times change .

-- Richard Saylor (rlsaylor@ix.netcom.com), February 01, 2002.

I know - - or I have known - - three superb NG photographers, viz., Kurt Wentzel, Fred Maroon ( just deceased) and Jim Blair. All have been masters in their field. The remark about the editors really rings true! The editors "pick and choose," and the photographers are left with egg on their faces because of the editors. It's a lousy system, but that's the way it works. As an aside, since I'm an old fud of almost 79 yerars of age, do you remember what the NG used to look like without all that advertising? IMHO, the advertisers sometimes call the shots - - and NG suffers. It's just a fact of life.

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), February 01, 2002.

I know what you're talking about Virgil.I have stack of NG's back as far as the early 50's(I bought 600 odd copies for £25 of a friend!) and I love looking back at them,the whole layout was 'cleaner',less fussy.

-- Phill (philkneen@manx.net), February 01, 2002.

I never thought it was as good as some people here seem to say it is. It never had the quality of photography that Life, as one example, had. It also has always had the problem that, except for stuff shot in the US, the photographers were cultural aliens and presented many cultures as "oddities".

The only photo magazine I get is Aperture.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 01, 2002.

While I tend to agree with the comments regarding the decrease in quality within NG, I'd like to make a couple of related observations. First, for many years, NG was the only portal people here had to other cultures around the world, and in keeping with the Brittish explorer tradition, those cultures were, in fact, treated as "oddities" in many respects. Sensitivity to cultural differences didn't exist a hundred years ago. Times change.

For the Geographic, that has meant a decline in the number of members and patrons - and the introduction of advertising as a means of financing the overall efforts and operations of the society. While I'm reasonably confident that advertisers don't actually "call the shots", placement of ads, and the colors within those ads, can have a considerable effect on color of photographs in the same printing "signature" (the full sheet of 16 pages or so that actually run through the presses).

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), February 01, 2002.

I agree. NG isn't what it used to be. I recently restarted my subscription only to discover that the mag was mostly fluff and the photography wasn't what I remember it being. I have issues of NG that go back to the 1930s and the quality of the writting even as recent as the 1980s is much better. Was NG bought by some huge media company? Usualy that is the deathknell from a quality standpoint.

feli

-- Feli di Giorgio (feli@d2.com), February 01, 2002.

I think this is the same organization who fired Bill Allard because he wanted to discuss photography and layout and text at meetings instead of about flying first class and hotels, etc.

-- (bmitch@home.com), February 01, 2002.

Times change

NatGeo didn't. They don't seem to know that there are many great photographers in other parts of the world. Why aren't they using African photographers in Africa, Asian photographers in Asia, Latin American photographers in Latin America? Many of these photographers can provide insight that a foreigner can't. Just knowing the neighborhood can make a difference. And speaking the language.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 01, 2002.

I was fortunate enough to be given a life membership in the NG magazine by my Great Aunt in 1956 as a graduation gift from the 8th grade in 1956. At that time the fee for that was either 90 or a 100 dollars.

Coupled with those issues since then, and stopping at and scouring through innumerable garage sales over the years I have a full set dating back to 1924. At one time or another I've read though all of these.

As such I can agree that the magazine, with the one exception of printing quality, has degraded throughout the years.

But many, many things have. At one time, even in my youth, it was one of the few windows to the world. Now there is the net, the Travel channel, the History Channel, etc. etc, etc. Read: Competition

Just as the last few pages used to be filled with ads for various military academies and prep schools (which have disappeared) so has the amount of direct magazine preparation staff, including photographers on the full time payroll. The replacements, including the writers, are not given the 5-6 months for a story as they were in what my Grandson calls the "oldie days". Rather they are generally contract personal, who are fortunate if they have three weeks to a month to complete assignments. In general the work shows it.

With that, they still have some wonderful, well researched and photographed articles. Just not that many shot with Leica equipment anymore though.

But hey, how many of us have been around for 114 years? If I get there, I hope I can come through as often as they do. And what a deal I'll have gotten on my Great Aunts 100 bucks.

Jerry

-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@MSN.com), February 01, 2002.

NG is in deed going down hill. Ever see the issue several months back about the United Kingdom? It showed a map of the British Isles with some towns dotted along the coast of Northern France (including Normandy). It made a point of identifying Utah and Omaha beaches - only two out of the FIVE D-Day landing beaches (Sword, Juno, Gold, Omaha and Utah). NG has a great deal to answer for in its inaccurate depiction of events. It is read worldwide and makes us Americans look like ignorant fools.

I did complain, by the way but recieved no response - of course. Time for a change of management at NG as far as I'm concerned.

Wonder if they ever read this thread?

Phil Allsopp Dallas, TX

-- Phil Allsopp (pallsopp42@attbi.com), February 01, 2002.

Well there are three reasons in my mind- all marketing motivated. 1. Not many photographers actually work for NG, but contracted, some regulars and some not. 2. Competition from other substitute magazines and internet info drives the need for increased advertising and more appealing pics that are technically driven rather than photos that come from the soul. ie. the need for wide angles-in your face shots and huge telephoto shots. Bresson's type of photography would be considered technically wrong compared to todays style of photography- SHAME! 3. The cameras they are primarily using are automatic, which changes their thought process at the time of exposure. Sure, they may get more shots because of the speed of operation, but this does nothing for content and creative! Just take a look at Steve McCurry's photography today compared to the late 80's and early 90's. Hope Salgado sticks to his guns.

Long live the past! A shame about the future.

-- kronik (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 01, 2002.

I agree with Jeff Spirer that they should use local photographers when they can. It will provide the depth that is sorely missing from many recent articles. But I suspect that the real culprit is the TV division. They seem to be focusing on NatGeo Channel nowadays, at the expense of the journal. Another case of the TV killing good journalism? Who knows, in 20yrs time there will be no more magazine left because TV finally won:(

As an aside, i thing the photos all have a degree of sameness about them. Not in the content but in the colours. Is Velvia making everything look similar, hypereal? Some of the pics of Asian cities and cultures sure don't look like what I actually see and know, and i live in Asia. Progress?

-- Steven Fong (steven@ima.org.sg), February 01, 2002.

Jeff - using local photographers may not give you the results you expect. Most photographers in third world countries (for instance) are members of a totally westernised elite to whom the backwaters of their own countries are just as exotic as they would be to a western photographer.

My experience of Indian photographers, with few honourable exceptions, is that their approach to India is just as clichéd and predictable as... my own ;-).

There's a phrase for this mentality: brown sahibs.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 02, 2002.

Hello Virgil.As Jay alluded to the control of the editorial staff..witness the late and great Eugene Smith's relationship with the editors of Life magazine..so current Geographic photographers may have like difficulties with the establishment. On the other hand Geographic photgraphers of yesteryear were given a lot of film and time on assignment.(More of these photographers also used Leica M's and really worked for their photos.) Remembering that the Geographic is really a big business with increased profits possibly a motive,corners may being cut to get the product out. However, the operators in time to come may notice less of their product selling out there.. and then it will be too late. Regards.

-- Sheridan Zantis (albada60@hotmail.com), February 02, 2002.

Hi,

I believe that in order to photograph a place or for that matter do a documentary of a place, one needs to (in order of priority) 1) Live, eat and do whatever in the place (2) if (1) is not available, get someone who will at least stay in the place for a period of time and actually experience the place first hand. As what Bob has said, it probably is so because of the powerful influence of the western media but I think if one looks further, one can find a suitable local person who does not see a place like a westernite. I personally feel that one has to feel passionate about the place, be able to relate to a place, its beauty, its sufferings, its inadequacies and most of all its soul and not some datelines and editorial preferences. It is difficult to project the qualities above but I think it can be done. Have anyone photograph a love one lately and feel that you have manage to capture the essence of what he or she is to you? I read somewhere on the forum that Salgado will spend a few years to do a project, do you know why?

-- wong kh (dosi@pd.jaring.net), February 02, 2002.

"going downhill?"

remember those times as kids or teenagers when we enjoyed the programs we watched on tv and our parents would say "look at all these crap they're showing on tv...it's not like what we had so-and- so years ago!" does that mean that the programs we watched are really crap? of course not.

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), February 02, 2002.

It's not quite the same thing is it Dexter.

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 02, 2002.

Dexter,when was the last time you had a Curly-wurly?

-- Craig (craigsmith@hotmail.com), February 02, 2002.

There was an article in Photo District News a while ago that noted, among the various reasons listed above, that NG has cut back substantially on the monies available for projects and the time given to the photographers to complete them.

The days of a photog spending six weeks in the bush and charging a Landrover to the magazine are over.

I think the main reason for the decline is that the photos you're seeing now have come from a three-to-five day assignment.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), February 02, 2002.

The number of rolls (usually 36 exposures each) ranges from 300 or 400 to more than 1000 for complex stories. While this seems high, you must remember that professional photographers “sketch” with the camera, much like writers probe with questions to get at the essential information. They explore subjects visually by shooting many sides of a subject in many ways. It is usually the combination of enough time in the field and enough film exposed that provides the depth that has become the hallmark of our coverages.

That's the answer to 'how much film is used on an average assignment?'.(see NG website)

OK,lets say 400 rolls as an average,fair? That's 14,400 slides! (36,000 for a "complex story").

FOURTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SLIDES and they can't choose 5 good ones? Someone is taking the piss.

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 02, 2002.

It's not quite the same thing is it Dexter.

look, i'm trying to play the devil's advocate here...i can't really state an opinion because i just started reading NG a couple of years ago--this is why i stated the argument--if it ain't valid, fine but you have to say why. however, i think it's a great magazine now-- and that includes this month's issue. the Cuba Reef article and pictures are wonderful.

Dexter,when was the last time you had a Curly-wurly?

is that the best you can come up with, little man?

please, everyone is entitled to his own opinion; let's not stoop down to a level of insulting anyone who is against the majority.

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), February 02, 2002.

Dexter,I wasn't insulting you!

I'm 32,I remember when Curly-wurlys were 8 feet long.....do you get my drift?

I'm very sorry you took it the wrong way.

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 02, 2002.

'little man?'

No,I'm 6'2'' and 17 stone.

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 02, 2002.

"The days of a photog spending six weeks in the bush and charging a Landrover to the magazine are over."

Well - reduced. See Jay's link to "A Leica Accolade" to see pictures from the NG's "Megatransect" story.

NGs had its ups and downs. I had a lot of fun one night sitting around a bar with 3 current/ex NG photographers and Rich Clarkson (former director of photography - NG). Once Mr. C is confortably behind a couple of bourbons, you get the real skinny on, e.g. the WA Allard episode, etc.

The Grosvenors ran NG as a benign patriarchy for 80 years - now it's industrialized I think some of the family feeling has evaporated.

Also, they're struggling a bit for new subject matter - they have to come up with (12 issues times 7 stories) 84 new story ideas per year. Visual ones, at that.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), February 03, 2002.

Shame on NGS! They ran an article on the Ethiopian Blue Nile a year or so ago that read like "Indiana Jones!" All about man- eating crocs and bandits. I've worked four assignments in this same area of Ethiopia in the past two years, and, believe me, Ethiopians deserve better than what NGS gave them! NGS, try showing some cultural understanding and compassion! Try educating your reading audience instead of merely entertaining them! Dig deep! Otherwise, get the hell outta Dodge!

-- John Layton (john.layton@valley.net), February 03, 2002.

We want FACTS and FANTASTIC photography.No more,no less.

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 03, 2002.

What a bunch of whining! I feel sorry for those of you who have been cursed with a lifelong subscription:-)
I just had an Oprah moment here (you know: look upon yourself when annoyed with other people) You sound just as pathetic as I did when Andy Warhol’s Interview magazine went downhill after his death. Lesson: Look elsewhere, there is always quality to be found, maybe in another form, but it is there. –amen.
Save your tears for March when Leica introduces a 100% battery dependent, metal shutter, auto focus, plastic made M7 body:-)

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), February 04, 2002.